the common law-第69节

按键盘上方向键 ← 或 → 可快速上下翻页，按键盘上的 Enter 键可回到本书目录页，按键盘上方向键 ↑ 可回到本页顶部！
————未阅读完？加入书签已便下次继续阅读！


r　spiritual　than　temporal；　were　inclined　to　think　that　the　heir　could　sue。　/2/　The　defendant　accordingly　over　and　set　up　a　release。　It　will　be　seen　how　fully　this　agrees　with　the　former　case。

The　distinction　taken　by　Markham　is　stated　very　clearly　in　a　reported　by　Lord　Coke。　In　the　argument　of　Chudleigh's　Case　the　line　is　drawn　thus：　〃Always；　the　warranty　as　to　voucher　requires　privity　of　estate　to　which　it　was　annexed；〃　（i。e。　succession　to　the　original　covenantee；）　〃and　the　same　law　of　a　use　。。。。　But　of　things　annexed　to　land；　it　is　otherwise；　as　of　commons；　advowsons；　and　the　like　appendants　or　appurtenances　。。。。　So　a　disseisor；　abator；　intruder；　or　the　lord　by　escheat；　&c。；　shall　have　them　as　things　annexed　to　the　land。　So　note　a　diversity　between　a　use　or　warranty；　and　the　like　things　annexed　to　the　estate　of　the　land　in　privity；　and　commons；　advowsons；　and　other　hereditaments　annexed　to　the　possession　of　the　land。〃　/3/　And　this；　it　seems　to　me；　is　the　nearest　approach　which　has　ever　been　made　to　the　truth。

Coke；　in　his　Commentary　on　Littleton　（385　a）；　takes　a　distinction　between　a　warranty；　which　binds　the　party　to　yield　lands　in　recompense；　and　a　covenant　annexed　to　the　land；　which　is　to　yield　but　damages。　If　Lord　Coke　had　＇400＇　meant　to　distinguish　between　warranties　and　all　covenants　which　in　our　loose　modern　sense　are　said　to　run　with　the　land；　this　statement　would　be　less　satisfactory　than　the　preceding。

A　warranty　was　a　covenant　which　sometimes　yielded　but　damages；　and　a　covenant　in　the　old　law　sometimes　yielded　land。　In　looking　at　the　early　cases　we　are　reminded　of　the　still　earlier　German　procedure；　in　which　it　did　not　matter　whether　the　plaintiff's　claim　was　founded　on　a　right　of　property　in　a　thing；　or　simply　on　a　contract　for　it。　/1/　Covenant　was　brought　for　a　freehold　under　Edward　I。；　/2/　and　under　Edward　III。　it　seems　that　a　mill　could　be　abated　by　the　same　action；　when　maintained　contrary　to　an　easement　created　by　covenant。　/3/　But　Lord　Coke　did　not　mean　to　lay　down　any　sweeping　doctrine；　for　his　conclusion　is；　that　〃a　covenant　is　in　many　cases　extended　further　than　the　warrantie。〃　Furthermore；　this　statement；　as　Lord　Coke　meant　it；　is　perfectly　consistent　with　the　other　and　more　important　distinction　between　warranties　and　rights　in　the　nature　of　easements　or　covenants　creating　such　rights。　For　Lord　Coke's　examples　are　confined　to　covenants　of　the　latter　sort；　being　in　fact　only　the　cases　just　stated　from　the　Year　Books。

Later　writers；　however；　have　wholly　forgotten　the　distinction　in　question；　and　accordingly　it　has　failed　to　settle　the　disputed　line　between　conflicting　principles。　Covenants　which　started　from　the　analogy　of　warranties；　and　others　to　which　was　applied　the　language　and　reasoning　of　easements；　have　been　confounded　together　under　the　title　of　＇401＇　covenants　running　with　the　land。　The　phrase　〃running　with　the　land〃　is　only　appropriate　to　covenants　which　pass　like　easements。　But　we　can　easily　see　how　it　came　to　be　used　more　loosely。

It　has　already　been　shown　that　covenants　for　title；　like　warranties；　went　only　to　successors　of　the　original　covenantee。　The　technical　expression　for　the　rule　was　that　they　were　annexed　to　the　estate　in　privity。　Nothing　was　easier　than　to　overlook　the　technical　use　of　the　word　〃estate；〃　and　to　say　that　such　covenants　went　with　the　land。　This　was　done；　and　forthwith　all　distinctions　became　doubtful。　It　probably　had　been　necessary　to　mention　assigns　in　covenants　for　title；　as　it　certainly　had　been　to　give　them　the　benefit　of　the　ancient　warranty；　/1/　for　this　seems　to　have　been　the　formal　mark　of　those　covenants　which　passed　only　to　privies。　But　it　was　not　necessary　to　mention　assigns　in　order　to　attach　easements　and　the　like　to　land。　Why　should　it　be　necessary　for　one　covenant　running　with　the　land　more　than　another？　and　if　necessary　for　one；　why　not　for　all？　/2/　The　necessity　of　such　mention　in　modern　times　has　been　supposed　to　be　governed　by　a　fanciful　rule　of　Lord　Coke's。　/3/　On　the　other　hand；　the　question　is　raised　whether　covenants　which　should　pass　irrespective　of　privity　are　not　governed　by　the　same　rule　which　governs　warranties。

These　questions　have　not　lost　their　importance。　Covenants　for　title　are　in　every　deed；　and　other　covenants　are　＇402＇　only　less　common；　which；　it　remains　to　show；　belong　to　the　other　class。

Chief　among　these　is　the　covenant　to　repair。　It　has　already　been　observed　that　an　easement　of　fencing　may　be　annexed　to　land；　and　it　was　then　asked　what　was　the　difference　in　kind　between　a　right　to　have　another　person　build　such　structures；　and　a　right　to　have　him　repair　structures　already　built。　Evidence　is　not　wanting　to　show　that　the　likeness　was　perceived。　Only；　as　such　covenants　are　rarely；　if　ever；　made；　except　in　leases；　there　is　always　privity　to　the　original　parties。　For　the　lease　could　not；　and　the　reversion　would　not　be　likely　to；　go　by　disseisin。

The　Dean　of　Windsor's　Case　decides　that　such　a　covenant　binds　an　assignee　of　the　term；　although　not　named。　It　is　reported　in　two　books　of　the　highest　authority；　one　of　the　reporters　being　Lord　Coke；　the　other　Croke；　who　was　also　a　judge。　Croke　gives　the　reason　thus：　〃For　a　covenant　which　runs　and　rests　with　the　land　lies　for　or　against　the　assignee　at　the　common　law；　quia　transit　terra　cum　onere；　although　the　assignees　be　not　named　in　the　covenant。〃　/1/　This　is　the　reason　which　governed　easements；　and　the　very　phrase　which　was　used　to　account　for　all　possessors　being　bound　by　a　covenant　binding　a　parcel　of　land　to　warranty。　Coke　says；　〃For　such　covenant　which　extends　to　the　support　of　the　thing　demised　is　quodammodo　appurtenant　to　it；　and　goes　with　it。〃　Again　the　language　of　easements。　And　to　make　this　plainer；　if　need　be；　it　is　added；　〃If　a　man　grants　to　one　estovers　to　repair　his　house；　it　is　appurtenant　to　his　house。〃　Estovers　for　＇403＇　repair　went　with　the　land；　like　other　rights　of　common；　/1/　which；　as　Lord　Coke　has　told　us；　passed　even　to　disseisors。

In　the　next　reign　the　converse　proposition　was　decided；　that　an　assignee　of　the　reversion　was　entitled　in　like　manner　to　the　benefit　of　the　covenant；　because　〃it　is　a　covenant　which　runs　with　the　land。〃　/2/　The　same　law　was　applied；　with　still　clearer　reason；　to　a　covenant　to　leave　fifteen　acres　unploughed　for　pasture；　which　was　held　to　bind　an　assignee　not　named；　/3/　and；　it　would　seem；　to　a　covenant　to　keep　land　properly　manured。　/4/

If　the　analogy　which　led　to　this　class　of　decisions　were　followed　out；　a　disseisor　could　sue　or　be　sued　upon　such　covenants；　if　the　other　facts　were　of　such　a　kind　as　to　raise　the　question。　There　is　nothing　but　the　novelty　of　the　proposition　which　need　prevent　its　being　accepted。　It　has　been　mentioned　above；　that　words　of　covenant　may　annex　an　easement　to　land；　and　that　words　of　grant　may　import　a　covenant。　It　would　be　rather　narrow　to　give　a　disseisor　one　remedy；　and　deny　him　another；　where　the　right　was　one；　and　the　same　words　made　both　the　grant　and　the　covenant。　/5/

The　language　commonly　used；　however；　throws　doubt　and　darkness　over　this　and　every　other　question　connected　with　the　subject。　It　is　a　consequence；　already　referred　to；　of　confounding　covenants　for　title；　and　the　class　last　discussed；　＇404＇　under　the　name　of　covenants　running　with　the　land。　According　to　the　general　opinion　there　must　be　a　privity　of　estate　between　the　covenantor　and　covenantee　in　the　latter　class　of　cases　in　order　to　bind　the　assigns　of　the　covenantor。　Some　have　supposed　this　privity　to　be　tenure；　some；　an　interest　of　the　covenantee　in　the　land　of　the　covenantor；　and　so　on。　/1/　The　first　notion　is　false；　the　second　misleading；　and　the　proposition　to　which　they　are　applied　is　unfounded。　Privity　of　estate；　as　used　in　connection　with　covenants　at　common　law；　does　not　mean　tenure　or　easement；　it　means　succession　to　a　title。　/2/　It　is　never　necessary　between　covenantor　and　covenantee；　or　any　other　persons；　except　between　the　present　owner　and　the　original　covenantee。　And　on　principle　it　is　only　necessary　between　them　in　those　casessuch　as　warranties；　and　probably　covenants　for　titlewhere；　the　covenants　being　regarded　wholly　from　the　side　of　contract；　the　benefit　goes　by　way　of　succession；　and　not　with　the　land。

If　now　it　should　be　again　asked；　at　the　end　of　this　long　discussion；　where　the　line　is　to　be　drawn　between　these　two　classes　of　covenants；　the　answer　is　necessarily　vague　in　view　of　the　authorities。　The　following　propositions　may　be　of　some　service。

*A。　With　regard　to　covenants　which　go　with　the　land：

*（1。）　Where　either　by　tradition　or　good　sense　the　burden　of　the　obligation　would　be　said；　elliptically；　to　fall　on　the　land　of　the　covenantor；　the　creation　of　such　a　burden　is　in　theory　a　grant　or　transfer　of　a　partial　interest　in　＇405＇　that　land　to　the　covenantee。　As　the　right　of　property　so　created　can　be　asserted　against　every　possessor　of　the　land；　it　would　not　be　extravagant　or　absurd　to　allow　it　to　be　asserted　by　the　action　of　covenant。

*（2。）　Where　such　a　right　is　granted　to　the　owner　of　a　neighboring　piece　of　land　for　the　benefit　of　that　land；　the　right　will　be　attached　to　the　land；　and　go　with　it　into　all　hands。　The　action　of　covenant　would　be　allowed　to　assigns　not　named；　and　it　would　n